Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.2003, Qupperneq 35
Liturgy of St Knud Lavard - Introduction
21
4.2.5).39 The material for the commemoration of the Passion is not of
much help in solving this problem, for - as is shown on pp. 49-50 below
- the antiphon Ave martyr has been replaced in L by a completely new
text, and the variants in N’s antiphon and collect are ambiguous (K] N):
32 labamur] labore (this and the next example are private readings of N)
33 transeamus] transferemur
38 mortern] Jta mortern (= L, but also the Odense breviary)
promeruimus] meruimus (= L, while here the Odense breviary = K)
Though the homily cued at N f. 294vb24-25 is on the Gospel text Si quis
venit ad me, Le. 14:26, prescribed in the Lund missal for the same feast
(see section 4.1.5 below, variant to K § 17:7:2), the greatest weight
should probably be placed on the similarity between the six lessons of N
and the abbreviated Translation narratives of the printed breviaries from
Odense and Schleswig (O and S; see sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2).40 Being
located in the supplement to the Sanctorale, N’s lessons could in theory
postdate both printed books, but since O ends at K 743 incrementum ac-
cepit, while N continues to 746 regnum, N cannot be derived from O.
Conversely, N cannot be the ancestor of O because it omits quite sub-
stantial passages preserved in the latter (706 et pro bonitate - 709 im-
pendebant; 724 Preualuit - 733 poneretur). Nor can N be derived from
S because it shares none of the innovations of the latter (see Appendix I,
no. 3, variants to lines 703, 704-05, 712-13, 717).
Hans Svendsen’s manuscript of the Translation narrative seems there-
fore to descend independently from an ancestor shared with the two
printed volumes. This common ancestor of N, O, and S is shown as *y in
the stemma on p. 59 below.
2.2.2. Copenhagen, Royal Library NKS 54 8vo (BKB). This paper manu-
script, described briefly by Ellen Jørgensen in the catalogue of medieval
39 Odense affiliation is urged in Ingmar Milveden, “Neue Funde zur Brynolphus-Kritik,”
Svensk Udskrift for musikforskning 54, 1972, 5-51, here 30-32 with Tab. IV and n. 12; cf.
Knud Ottosen, L'Antiphonaire latin au moyen-åge [...], Rome 1986, 19. For the previous-
ly uncontested Lund interpretation see Schmid and Wallin (as n. 37).
40 This similarity is documented in Appendix I, no. 3, where some readings also shared
with the manuscript excerpt BAM (see section 2.2.4) are to be noted; L has again substitu-
ted a new text at this place.